INTRODUCTION

In its decision in Shailesh Verma, Resolution Professional of Lavasa Corporation Limited vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited, a 3 (three)member bench of the Hon’ble National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”) has held that continuation of electricity supply to a corporate debtor during the subsistence of the corporate insolvency resolution process (“CIRP”) is subject to payment for such supply.

Brief Facts

November, 2022 For Private Circulation - Educational & Informational Purpose Only Between the lines... A BRIEFING ON LEGAL MATTERS OF CURRENT INTEREST KEY HIGHLIGHTS ⁎ NCLT: A related party of the financial creditor is not barred under Section 29A of the IBC to submit a resolution plan. ⁎ NCLAT: Attachment of Corporate Debtor’s bank account by the Employees’ Provident Fund Organization cannot continue during Moratorium. ⁎ NCLT: Indemnity of obligations under an agreement is not a 'financial debt' under Section 5(8) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

This dossier (“Dossier”) intends to be a one stop guide to keep

our readers abreast with the significant judgements, orders,

circulars, and directions passed in relation to the Real Estate

(Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (“the Act”) and the

rules thereunder which are beneficial for all the stakeholders

of this ever-expanding industry. Volume 2 of the Dossier is a

compilation of all the impactful judgments/orders passed in the

first quarter of the year 2022, i.e., from January 2022 to March

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 has been evolving immensely since its inception. Through this Quarterly Journal the firm aims to share recent updates and landmark Judgements pertaining to the Code.

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was enacted, amongst others, to facilitate timely insolvency resolution. While the Supreme Court has always upheld the sanctity of timelines under the Code for corporate insolvency resolution, it has held the prescribed timelines for actions prior to the commencement of the corporate insolvency process as merely directory. This article explores the impact of such decisions on the proceedings under the Code which already suffer from inordinate delays.

The amended regulations are laudatory steps which will help to maximise recoveries for creditors since the amendments will lead to concluding the liquidation process in a time bound manner.

In the previous quarter, the Supreme Court pronounced important judgements on the admission of insolvency applications filed by financial creditors and the validity of resolution plans not providing for payment of statutory dues to government authorities. In arbitration law, the Supreme Court clarified the scope of the court’s power to grant interim measures under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and assess the arbitrability of a dispute in an application filed for appointment of the arbitrator.

Between the lines... For Private Circulation-Educational & Information purpose only Vaish Associates Advocates… Distinct. By Experience. I. Supreme Court: The actual gain or loss is immaterial, but the motive for making a gain is essential. The Supreme Court (“SC”) has, in its judgment dated September 19, 2022, in the case of Securities and Exchange Board of India v. Abhijit Rajan [Civil Appeal No. 563 of 2020], held that in deciding cases pertaining to insider trading, the actual gain or loss is immaterial, but the motive for making a gain is essential.

Insolvency Proceedings are commenced upon bankruptcy of a debtor. In simple terms, bankruptcy is inability of a corporate debtor to pay back its creditors. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) governs insolvency proceedings in India. A corporate insolvency resolution process (“CIRP”) is a recovery mechanism for the creditors of the corporate debtor and the CIRP can be initiated under Section 7 & Section 9 of the IBC.